As you know, earlier this week Pat Robertson accused the GOP base of being too extreme and made a plea for them to focus on electability. That's as close to an endorsement of Romney as you're likely to hear from him at this point.
You might have already seen that today George Will eviscerated Romney in his column and made a case in support of the base's extremism.
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
Eegads, my head is spinning with trying to figure out who are the "sane" folks in that party. Just to show you what I mean, here is another clip of Pat Robertson this week (h/t Infidel753) decrying the dangers of matriarchy.
So he wants to warn us about the scary women about to take over the country all while talking about the base being too extreme...really?
And then here's a shocker from George Will on the presidential election just 7 months ago.
Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon - Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
I guess that today Will is prepared to entrust nuclear weapons to those "careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates."
Can someone please point me to the "sane" folks here?